- Jul 24, 2010
- Reaction score
Temporally will work although the full meaning ontically is richer . If we are going to get into the language of ontology then that is language I'll use. But this is hair splitting at this level.Jonathan Gress said:I don't really follow your use of "ontically", by which you appear to intend something different from "temporally". What does it mean if something precedes something else "ontically"?
That is fine. It is a radical POV. And one that would be have to be worked out within a larger framework of what death is ontologically. I am not conceited enough to think posting some Cliff Notes to some odd ways of thinking are going to be persuasive, if the reader is unfamiliar with the technical issues at hand. The question of whether a being other than a human can die is an important much discussed point in the question of what is death. If one is not reading that literature, then I can see why there ain't much to glean from it.Jonathan Gress said:I also don't accept your idea that animal death doesn't really exist. Obviously, this is similar to the idea Bp Alexander was playing with when promoting his own integrated theory of Orthodox evolutionism. But it's rather questionable, no? Are there Fathers that actually teach this distinction?
Wait for it . . .
Patristic hermeneutics is complicated and more than the quote mining that goes on here. So to answer your question:
First, folks with a strong grounding in Patristics needs to get a strong ground in Continental thought to answer your question, which is happening.
Second, I don't care that much. The Church Fathers are not infallible and nearly everything I've read except quote mining fundie EOs see the Church Fathers not having consensus on many of these issues. I've yet to meet a well educated Priest who would claim to know any definitive answers here they would be binding on an EO to believe. And that is sorta the point about why this is interesting. Cause there ain't any answers.
I didn't imply that necessarily.Jonathan Gress said:I do agree that there was something particular about Paradise. It was a special place, designed for Man, and set apart in some way from the rest of the world. However, I don't believe this entails that the rest of the world was already subject to corruption
Fr. Seraphim of Platina? Are you talking about him? Frankly, I hold him in very low regard in any of his "critiques" of "modernity" and the like. He was just a dilettante in his education and arrogant in his grasp of sweep and scope of Western thought. Can't speak to his writing on matters strictly Orthodox per se, but those who I respect have a similar opinion of his grasp of those ideas as well.Jonathan Gress said:Fr Seraphim
This is not to say he wasn't a great man. Just not the best example IMHO to trot as a decent critic of "modernity".
Again I don't think I implied that latter remarks specifically and I think in the former remarks in the quote we are in agreement, just a matter of syntax perhaps.Jonathan Gress said:I don't believe Man's mission was to "spread" Paradise, but rather it was to cultivate and tend it. Maybe that also includes spreading it, but again, I don't take it to mean that the rest of the world was subject to death from the beginning, and that part of Man's mission was to subdue this world of death. He was meant to subdue the earth, certainly, but not because the world was already dying.
Again, fascinating stuff.